Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2014, 10:51 AM

I see yet another major development has been approved despite having no 'affordable' housing element. Seeing as Julian Swift-Hook et al. have no bottle to insist on this important element of housing development planning, I think it is time to get rid of it; it is pointless and our authorities are toothless to insist on. I see the developer will not disclose the expected profit from the Sterling Cables development. That on it's own would have led me to reject it had I'd been in a position to do so.

We need affordable housing, so what we are seeing is a form of 'ethnic cleansing' in the town. The people who can least afford it are being removed from it.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 8 2014, 11:12 AM

Wrong. It has not been approved it was just given the green light by the toothless Town Council. It still has to go through the mill of the WBC planning.

As far as the euphemistic affordable housing, it is, in this case a burden on the developer to spend upwards of £6m before he does anything on the site. This includes getting rid of contamination and providing land and the effort to stick a road through that the highways department want, a new footpath in Kings Road and probably give land on the Eastern end so that the council can get a two way bridge in Boundary Road.

Equally, as far as the development profit is concerned, the architect was quite right to tell the Town Council to mind their own business when they asked how much profit was there. They are the last people to whinge about confidentiality clauses methinks. It so happens that the developer has agreed with the planning department that there will be an open book policy between themselves.

What that has got to do with ethnic cleansing I don't know.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2014, 11:24 AM

I know it will never happen but I would like to see councils building low rise truly affordable housing and providing the mortgages as well. Weed out profiteers and potential landlords, derive a profit from mortgage repayments and plough that into more housing.

Removes it from developers, benefits the whole community, solves the local housing crisis. I know it won't work but, wouldn't it be luvverly.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 8 2014, 12:02 PM

It worked well for a few decades, no reason why it shouldn't again, but it's not fashionable these days to talk of state supplied housing. However, the real problem is the cost of land, allowing the market to control prices while the state controls planning has inflated house prices ludicrously. I'm no fan of unrestricted building so the only logical alternative is for the state to control land prices as well (for large developments at least). Allowing land owners a premium of say 500% over agricultural land prices would seem fair and should reduce the cost of a new house enormously.

I'm not convinced that the state should supply mortgages though - the whole idea of a mortgage should be about people who can afford them - not encouraging people to buy what they can't afford (remember what got us into the recession). State housing could solve the shortage of affordable rental homes, reduce the cost of renting in the private sector, increase the supply of houses to buy (as buy to let landlords sell uneconomic rentals - in theory reducing house prices a little), and, hopefully, wean the country off the daft idea that everyone should buy a home.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2014, 12:13 PM

Oh the irony!

Yes, it would work and it did. Why the Council? Let's face it, they can't even provide public lavatories. The mutual building societies used to do exactly what you suggest. I wonder how many of us did what I did and vote 'no' when members were asked if they wanted their society to become a plc? Ooh no, once I've got my house, I'll take the cash please. Ever wonder where Mrs T's famous 'there is no such thing as society' comes from?

Where does the 'low rise' constraint come from? Is that simply applying popular prejudice to other peoples lives? Many people do actually want the convenience of living in town centres, without gardens they'd have to maintain and with spectacular views.

The general perception against high rise was caused by the very people you are suggesting could sort things out - our dear local Councils!! Cheap utility design and construction,
coupled with appalling estate management and a total failure to properly maintain. Trust our Councils with housing again; err no thanks, once bitten and all that!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2014, 12:17 PM

Quite agree, state control of land with a vibrant and respectable rented sector would take us way forward. I've always felt that 'affordable' is simply another unnecessary stigma, a bit like 'special' when applied to kids!

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 8 2014, 12:26 PM

Well as has already been said, that is what used to happen. People always rented their accommodation apart from the richer bretheren of course. The whole of Turnpike estate was built as Council houses and allocated by the Newbury District Council. I would say that would be low rise with a large garden. The houses were a bit basic but in those days that is what happened and people were satisfied with that. It's no good calling them the good old days though as washing machines, tumble dryers, central heating and even fridges were luxuries whereas today, they are essentials along with an expensive mobile phone or two, a late model motor car or two. The world has changed and we need to live with it.

So what happened to Turnpike, it was sold to the tenants at ridiculously low price and therefore there was little money available for the council to invest in replacement stock. As soon as they could the purchasers took their profit and wanted bigger and better and more desireable homes.

Luvverly.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2014, 12:59 PM

With low rise it's easier to provide things like space to park your car, gets rid of the stigma attached to the Mandela house syndrome. Also provides somewhere for mum to park the kids, gives wildlife a chance. No one (apparently) wants to rent so sell em a property. The idea really would be council houses for the 21st century.

I know it ain't perfect, far from it in fact but then I'm not a politician so I tend to look at things in black and white. (Probably get told off for that as well now).

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 8 2014, 01:15 PM

Problem there is that low rise is not low cost.

What I would like is for someone to tell me what a developer has to do to provide a low cost apartment.

He, for instance, wants to build an apartment block with 50 units. If he has to provide, let's save 5 as low cost, what will be the difference between the two types. Why should he sell a unit at a discount and what stops that unit reverting to a normal unit price when the low cost owner wants to move on.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2014, 01:28 PM

Simply because no one has taken a lead and explained things. In housing for instance,when the council rented three bed semis, with inside Wc and bath, were first erected, a good number gave up their tenancies because they much preferred the old inner city terraces!! Before Mrs T came along, the mantra was that no one wanted to live in a Council house because they carried such a stigma. Actually, against most of the private houses built at the time, the dwellings were quite lavish, but even today, there remains public perceptions about 'ex Council estates'. Do we really want to bring them back?

The scheme you suggest is really the shared ownership scheme, already operated by Public service Housing Associations. All quite laudable and will do ad you say, but again (rightly) the scheme isn't just the old one size fits all approach which so bedevilled local Councils.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2014, 01:37 PM

A perfect example to illustrate is the ex council student accommodation. In areas near universities, the family council house was purchased by Gran under the heavily discounted scheme, so she could afford it. The lads moved out when they had their own families and when gran died, divided her house into student rooms so the place ended up,housing more people than it was designed to do and giving 'the lads' a substantial almost protected income for very little input!

Who actually decides who qualifies for affordable housing? Or are we back to euphemism world, where what is actually meant is very different and it's really social housing? If so, and you are the Sales Manager, are you honestly going to properly support that?

Posted by: blackdog Jun 8 2014, 02:41 PM

All a developer has to do is to build it and sell it at a lower than market price into the 'affordable' housing sector. Around here that generally means selling to Sovereign.

Tennants will have the right to buy, which will move some units from affordable to normal - to the benefit of the tenant who gets a discount depending on lenght of tenure. But that is planned for - the Thatcherite dream of everyone owning their own home is, supposedly, worth subsidising. Of course the housing association will get some funds from the sale and can use them to buy more 'affordable' homes on new developments.

The affordable housing quota on new developments is the only way that councils have to force developers to supply cut price homes - so it is important that developers cannot use the only viable excuse for not building them (that the development would be economically non-viable) without some form of proof. I don't blame NTC asking for proof - shame WBC didn't do so for Parkway. Developers shouldn't be allowed to drop affordable housing without giving the figures that demonstrate they can't afford it.

That said, WBC's requirement for a through road is a huge burden on the Sterling Cables development and is probably a fair exchange for the affordable housing requirement.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2014, 03:59 PM

"Affordable Housing" is a misnomer, and at the end of the day it actually inflates house prices. Let developers build what the market want and let them sell at the price the market can afford. Simples.

The one bit of market regulation that I would bring back is a tight control on the ration of borrowing to mortgage; something like 2.5x income would be sensible. It would keep prices affordable and stop the feckless overreaching themselves with unaffordable debt that inflates the market for everyone else.

As for local authorities building council houses, I think that's an awful idea - our local government are useless enough, so I really don't want to give them even more stuff to nause up. However, the principle is right - so I'd like it to be much easier for people to get together to form a self-build housing cooperative, so there might be some scope for state support to help cooperatives like this form, and I like the idea of giving them the right to compulsory purchase sites for sustainable development at some kind of reasonable price.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 8 2014, 04:38 PM

Well, in theory, don't we have that already with the charitable status Sovereign Housing. The development that is going on at the moment in Speen and Enborne Road is run by them as was the retirement homes in the Andover Road. They were gifted the council properties years ago and that is what they do so we no longer have council houses. Instead we have the posher named Sovereign houses.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2014, 04:46 PM

We have a severe shortage of affordable housing. If that cannot be addressed, then no, I say.


Whoopty do.


A social class is being moved out of the town.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2014, 04:52 PM

I've read enough to know that our politics are completely incompatible. I'd never vote for someone with your views, sorry.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2014, 05:28 PM

No, that's not what I have in mind. I'm thinking much more of a cooperative collective, organising to help themselves. Sovereign serves a valid purpose and I'm not knocking their business model, but I would like people to be able to manage their own affairs where possible.

So for example, how about legislation to allow any cooperative of six or more private individuals to compulsorily buy land (which would probably have to pass some sustainability test) at some standard rate of £25k/acre with deemed planning consent for a development of some combination of standard sustainable designs with maybe some limit on the resale or rental value. It wouldn't exactly be a planning free-for-all because there would be some control over the standard designs.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2014, 05:29 PM

No problem, I'm just pleased you know my views. I hope you get the chance to know what other candidates think.

Posted by: nerc Jun 8 2014, 08:12 PM

If the planning for Sterling Cables (ex site) gets full approval why should the developer have to supply affordable housing?.

As stated earlier in this thread the initial outlay prior to any development is going to be in the region of some 6m +.

This on its own is a substantial amount of money for such a small site and i think that the profit from the proposed development will not be as great as some may think, so why offer affordable properties.

In a nutshell, if you were the developer would you want to reduce your profits to provide just a few of affordable homes to please a minority amount of people.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2014, 09:19 PM

It all stands and falls on the cost of land.

The original building society idea was just as you describe, but when it took off, land was significantly cheaper. Yes, some form of national control would help, but can you imagine what it would take to get that through? We are an aristocracy and land ownership is the key to their power.

The Bevan idea for Council Houses was one answer, his socialist approach was to make 'public housing' so good, only an idiot would want anything else. Sadly, management and control was vested in Local Authorities - you weren't even permitted to do internal decoration yourself back then! Imagine, living in a house where the decor is chosen by your favorite Councillors.....

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 8 2014, 09:38 PM

The vultures are already snipping around for their cut. (S106 payment)

Libraries £34,306

Education £389,892

Adult social care £104,941

No doubt there will be more requests. Can you think why the WBC favourite keeps appearing on every development. Libraries. We must by now have books bound in gold the amount of S106 they have been gifted. This may of course be a WBC savings scheme of course.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 8 2014, 09:42 PM

Not true, whilst tenants were not allowed to make structural change or do external decoration, there was a scheme in Newbury where they could get a grant to assist with internal decoration.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2014, 09:56 PM

Exactly the point, and why there needs legislation. Developers would not build any if left to them. Thanks to the shambolic Thatcher idea of selling ageing council homes off way too cheap, and subsequent governments not building replacements, we have a two tier system where there are those who have a home(s) of significant value, and those can cannot even afford the most base level of mortgage in Newbury.

I understand that last year flats sold for an average of £185,000. Terraced properties sold for an average of £223,000, and semi-detached properties fetched £291,000. How can anyone afford that on modal average wages?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 9 2014, 06:37 AM

So the Director of Housing at Southwark Borough Council was lying when he made a keynote speech at a Housing Conference in 1956 where he suggested that the time had come where it was possible to permit tenants to do internal decorating?

Yes, the rules started to change, but even In your memory, 'tenants were not allowed to make structural change or do external decoration'. Great, the Council chooses the colour of your front door!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 9 2014, 06:55 AM

Quite right, but it's going to take more than what is really the implementation of gesture politics through developers. It won't solve the base issue.

The biggest problem is the scarcity and consequently the cost of land. The other as your rightly highlight, the un affordability of the dwelling itself.

However, as there is a market, some can afford them. If you manage to earn an acceptable wage, it's possible; as financial sector earnings in London amply demonstrate. Then, of course, the changes to pension rules mean that for some, the Bank of Mum and Dad will be able to help. It really won't be flash cars these people spend money on!

So should pressure be put on employers to pay proper wages, and the Government to protect and try to attract the high end salary jobs? Let's also encourage mutual personal finance schemes and dare I say it, promote the idea that you don't actually need to 'own' your home, rather have a solid long term stake in it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 9 2014, 11:36 AM

In my view there was nothing wrong with Council Housing. Maybe they lacked design awards, but they were all soundly constructed, thoughtfully located and set in decent plots. (I speak of houses, not the awful high rise blocks and tenements thrown up in particular locations.)
I doubt the Councils were any better or worse than the current array of Housing Associations. For sure there was no profit element to inflate rents. As with any home, some looked after them, some didn't. Some behaved in them, some didn't.
For sure the (majority of) private landlords catered for a separate part of the rental market and did not charge enormous rents for property barely habitable, especially once the rent tribunals etc were fully functioning.
The sale of Council Housing was supposed to reward long-term tenants. The hole in the policy was that the Councils could not re-invest in housing. There was a huge one-time income bubble followed by a total lack of emergency accommodation (which the Councils remain responsible for) forcing displaced families into B&B at huge expense.
I don't know what HAs currently charge, but the rentals I am aware of often exceed the mortgage payment needed to buy, and prevent saving towards the required deposit. Council rents at least avoided that barrier, with tenants looking to buy able to save a bit after the rent was paid. A not-for-profit scheme would reinstate that option. (HAs may be charities, but they are not 'not-for-profit').
As for 'Affordable Housing' - the greatest PC-speak lie I can think of. What is unaffordable?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 9 2014, 12:40 PM

That's a view, but it isn't one that many would recognise. In general, the council housing stock was like the curates egg, good in parts. That's an established fact. Some of the prewar ones, even in Newbury were dreadful when built. The experimental concrete constructions of which there were many, were similarly awful. Having said that, those constructed in the late 1940s were superb.

In many parts of the country, particularly where there were big concentrations, estate management and property maintenance was demonstrably appalling Today's housing associations in comparison to local council housing departments are paragons of virtue and best practice. Council housing swamped the private rental sector and bad local council management gave the whole rental approach a bad name.

Council housing started in late Victorian times by a very few enlighten authorities simply to enable slum clearance. The idea took off after WW1 in an attempt to solve a then 'affordable housing' crisis. Sadly, in exactly the same way that developers didn't want 'affordable houses' near their developments, Council housing was concentrated in estates, often of massive proportions. The stigma attached to Council housing hoes back a long way - ever heard of the Cutteslow Wall for instance? Similarly, even round here, Newbury is not immune to the perception created by council housing.

For many years, the statutory rights of council tenants were rather less than those enjoyed in the private rental sector. I well remember a County Court case where a Berkshire Local Council was attempting to evict a tenant because they'd failed to keep their garden in good order; no it wasn't an unholy mess, they just wanted the house.

The sale of council houses, no matter where the revenues went was driven only by political dogma, nothing more, nothing less. To make it work, sales patter was needed as was the massive discounting. That it was a reward for paying the rent is clearly a sales pitch and that is all. A couple of people I know were very very angry about that, having left their 'council' house to buy their own a few years earlier.

The failure to reinvest wasn't anything to do with the sales, given the discounting, local authorities wouldn't have been able to replace like for like anyway. The real reason was the Conservative Governments insistence that housing wasn't a Concil role, no matter what local people felt. Yet another demonstration that power is held by the centre only.

Whatever the answer is, I sincerely hope it does not involve local councils.


With regard to Housing Association rents, I'm not convinced they are higher than mortgage repayments. If they really were, market forces says few would stay in them. Mortgage repayments depend very much on the amount borrowed, not the market rent.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 9 2014, 12:40 PM

Just for the record, located in a Surrey Town, I spent the first eighteen years of my life in a Council house, which was new when my parents took the tenancy. They moved out when they were able to buy their own property, which to be frank was older and smaller.

An abiding memory was one of the five yearly inspections, Dad, then a professional glazier, replaced the plain glass in the front door frame with decorative glass. He was 'fined' ten shillings!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 01:53 PM

I doubt that obvious piece of hyperbole is true.

An affordable home will be one that the occupier(s) can afford on low or middle income(s). It includes council and association homes. Post war council homes, I think, were generous and well built.

The big problem we have now is the widening of the wage gap. Professional wages in the Thames Valley have not been suppressed as much as the low skill wages.

Take the average flat price, £180,000.00. Lets' say Mr and Mrs Average have saved or have parents with £40,000.00 spare, so they need a £140,000.00 mortgage. that is over 5 times national mean average wage. I believe before deregulation, the old calculator for affordability was 2.5 annual combined salary.

Association rents are 'competitive', but can differ wildly on the location, but I would expect rents to be between 50% and 80% of private renting, but one thing to bear in mind is that I understand annual association rents always increase above inflation so they are becoming proportionally more expensive as time goes on.




Anyway, this is all a digression on the original point. It has been identified that there is a dearth of modestly priced homes, and to that end, affordable homes need to make up a proportion of new developments, but it seems every time a new development is proposed, the developers 'cannot make it pay'. This happened at Parkway, at the Racecourse, and now at Sterling Cables, albeit, the Sterling Cables plot has a better 'excuse'. It will be interesting to see what the mix will be at Sandleford.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2014, 07:10 PM

"Affordable Housing" isn't necessarily more affordable, it's entirely possible to make the "affordable housing" offering more expensive than other housing in the offering. It's a total piece of nonsense.

What would make housing more affordable is to increase supply, so just enable developers to build more houses, and the more expensive the houses the better! There's only a finite amount of money available to be spent on mortgages and the free-market will set the same average house price whether you build a shed load of low-end houses, or a shed-load of high-end houses, it's just if you build a shed-load of low-end houses then the quality of house that you get for that average house price is lower than if you build a shed-load of high-end houses. So build high-end houses, and improve everyone's quality of life.

House prices would also become more affordable if people were prevented from borrowing more than they can afford, so cap lending multipliers. Everyone ends up with the same house they would have bought, it's just they get it with half the size of mortgage.

S.108 is simply another tax on the poor house-buying schmo. It generates some handy cash for local authorities for them to spend on play-grounds and parks which leaves their council-tax free to spend on the dressing up box and twin-town holidays for their ceremonial mayors, but it's all passed along until it sits on the house buyer's mortgage along with all the other parasitic taxes and charges that our politicians are too involved in to want to do anything about.

So just free-up developers to build the best quality sustainable development they can.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 07:58 PM

Best solution yet. I concur.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 08:44 PM

Affordable means just that: a home that is affordable by people on the median wage. that isn't the case at the moment.


Do you have an example of how this has worked elsewhere? Has Newbury seen a surge in supply of cheaper homes since developers have been 'let-off' the affordable homes quota?


So what party is going to put that in their manifesto that people will only be able to buy £100,000.00 homes ?


Like I said, the differential between professional and unskilled wages is widening. There will be a great number of people that simply won't qualify for a mortgage. How will that help them?

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 09:21 PM

I would be interested in your thoughts about what an affordable home is in terms of a development.

A builder builds 50 homes and 5 are to be affordable. How does he market the 5 affordable. Are they to be purchased by a Housing association at discount and if so, how will that impact on the profitability of the 50 home development. Should he offer them at discount to the first 5 buyers who turn up with suitable mortgage in place. Whatever the result the next 45 homes will have to be more expensive to compensate.

What rules should there be to ensure that when the affordable buyer decides to sell, that home stays within the affordable range.

Every planning application of any substance gets saddled with all sorts of demands. Each one of these adds to the final sale price. Where does it end.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2014, 09:22 PM

And if people were only able to afford £100,000, just how many properties do you suppose would be up on the market for £450,000?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2014, 09:27 PM

Oh wait, I've an idea, how about a help-to-buy scheme where the state puts in the other £350,000, that will let everyone buy £450,000 homes with £100,000 mortgages, I don't know what no one thought of that before, that's a great idea.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 9 2014, 09:30 PM

Where do you get that definition from? Most 'affordable' housing goes to housing associations for the subsidised rental market.


Simon's theory is that making the housing market a free market (by allowing developers to build pretty much what they want where they want the market) will ensure that quality goes up and prices fall because they will actually have to compete for business for a change. It's a pretty good theory, but has the huge disadvantage of seeing the countryside covered in houses.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 09:34 PM

I like that scheme and as a taxpayer, I hope Andy does as well.

Posted by: Lolly Jun 9 2014, 09:36 PM

I think he may have got it from Wikipedia ( I saw it whilst looking up the government definition which is somewhat longer....)

Social and affordable housing
Affordable housing is social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. From April 2012 affordable housing is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (prior to this the definitions in Planning Policy Statement 3 apply).

Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.

"Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing. Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as ‘low cost market’ housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes."

Simples.....

Posted by: Lolly Jun 9 2014, 09:41 PM

Link to source of above definition

https://www.gov.uk/definitions-of-general-housing-terms

Posted by: On the edge Jun 9 2014, 09:48 PM

It's more that the 'professional jobs' are rapidly disappearing and not being replaced. We are becoming a low wage economy and that doesn't fit against universal home ownership.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 09:49 PM

I grew up in a council house and in a council estate. It seems that estate now has many 'valuable' homes and command a comparable price with the local average even with only modest improvements.


Compensate what? Why do they have to be more expensive.


I dunno, I don't make the rules. My OP was to complain that the local councils are failing to implement the affordable element policy.


It doesn't seem to stop homes at that end of the market getting sold, nor stem the appetite of the developer to develop, so I'm left thinking: so what?

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 09:53 PM

That government definition is typical politician speak. Totally meaningless, open to interpretation and doesn't say how the discount is achieved. Affordable housing, a couple of words that allow the council to extract a premium from the developer if he can't deliver or perhaps to use the ratepayers money to subsidise them.

Either way, it's about time that the politicians who generate these requirements moved into the real world. Any squeeze on a developer adds to the final price of a standard home which inflates the market. In general, the quality of build today is high as a developer knows that he has to achieve a standard compatible with modern living standards. The market place is competitive and sale of newbuild depends on quality. With modern building standards, the cost of build is high. Materials are expensive and land is expensive. Believe it or not, the margins can get very tight.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 09:54 PM

Finding it hard to ignore the churlish tone in your reply, but perhaps you would answer my question?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2014, 09:54 PM

I think that deserves some looking at. Let me nail this for starters: I'm not talking about building in the countryside, because building in the countryside isn't sustainable, and I'm only advocating a free-for-all of sustainable development. OK, so if you wanted to build a sustainable new town garden city then that would likely be in the countryside, but I'm guessing that most development will need to be on the outskirts of towns so that it concentrates social resources like jobs, shops, and leisure, and minimises travel. It'll be greenfield, but hardly a "countryside covered in houses".

And as I've argued before, I don't accept the implied premise of countryside-good-housing-estate-bad. Sure, a housing estate with poor quality design, cheap materials, unimaginative generic design, and poorly planned public space is a horror, but so too is the "countryside" - have you been to Norfolk and Lincolnshire? But take a trip to any number of towns in the Cotswolds say, and see how enjoyable the built environment can be.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2014, 09:56 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 10:01 PM

Land is only expensive in accordance to the expected usage; however, if AH is a meaningless concept, how come developers have difficulty in building one? Where's the evidence what you say is true? If I pass the average estate agent, the vast majority of homes for sell are at a price beyond the average wage earners persons pocket.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 10:07 PM

Not sure what your point is except that these original affordable homes are no longer affordable homes.



The developer is entitled to a profit from his efforts as most businesses strive for this objective



So, if you don't know, how can a council load the burden onto the developer. Properties sell when the quality is right and the price is right. The developer will aim at a sale to make a profit from his labours or investment if you like. Whilst you don't make the rules, what would you suggest is best option then.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 10:10 PM

Like I said... Any squeeze on a developer adds to the final price of a standard home which inflates the market. In general, the quality of build today is high as a developer knows that he has to achieve a standard compatible with modern living standards. The market place is competitive and sale of newbuild depends on quality. With modern building standards, the cost of build is high. Materials are expensive and land is expensive. Believe it or not, the margins can get very tight.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 10:12 PM

While I can afford it, I have no problem paying into a social fund. It seems to me, as the country slowly takes up ownership of 'our land' the more b*****d selfish people are getting. Building luxury homes will just mean more luxury homes for those that can afford it. As soon as the luxury home market gets saturated, they will just stop building.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 10:17 PM

Yes right, you are prepared to pay tax to home the populace who can't afford to buy.

As far as your second point, if the high value market place gets saturated, perhaps that might be the catalyst for estates where the homes are all affordable. A bit like the council housing we used to have and served us well until it was moved into private ownership and those owners took their profit and ran

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 10:20 PM

Can you or your capitalist buddy show examples of where a free housing market works and frees-up homes affordable for the low paid? At the moment whimsical ideas about mass devaluation of homes sounds good, it ain't going to happen anytime soon, but mandatory affordable homes are obtainable now.

It's a knackered job, we have a two tier country: those with homes (the majority), and those who don't, and such is the government's desperate attempt to keep the housing market buoyant, we have to suffer near 0% interest rates.

Then only thing i can think of that might make a difference is if we make affordable dwellings less expensive, perhaps reduce taxation, and encourage apprenticeships in building so that affordable homes are built and supervised by developers using those people.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 9 2014, 10:25 PM

That sounds to me like you are advocating employing unskilled cheap labour and call them apprentices.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2014, 10:31 PM

That sounds to me like a strawman fallacy.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 9 2014, 10:44 PM

Indeed I have, as I was a 'local' at the time and had school friends who had lived both sides..... It was built by the developer to 'protect' his investment.
There are many walled estates being built now........ For top-end occupants.

Posted by: nerc Jun 10 2014, 04:49 AM

So your idea is to employ "cheap Labour", surely this then goes against your normal comments about low wages.

An apprentice is usually on low wages and would not be able to afford to buy their own home.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2014, 06:17 AM

If that was the only reason, the wall would have been down years earliehouses, r and there would have been no high court actions. The developer had made his money, it was the residents in the private houses who wanted 'to protect' their investment!! And these houses were standard 1930s semis. The fact remains, council housing carried a stygma.

Surely, rather than going for cheap housing, should we not be going for better wages? Do we really want to perpetuate a two tier society, where we'd rather subsidise 'the poor'? Lets face it, whatever we might think of house prices locally, the number of apparently successful estate agents round here suggests there must be a market; people are buying them.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 10 2014, 07:36 AM

Better wages might be an answer but there will always be differentials which are down to the skill levels attained by the worker. If the shelf stacker's wages are elevated to the current level of a skilled technician, he/she will want a higher wage, then the manager will want his wages elevated and then of course to maintain the differential the solicitors will want more income.

So, what will happen, products from the businesses staffed by the wage earners on elevated salaries will become too expensive to sell, our exports will suffer, our imports of luxury goods will increase and we will spiral towards massive unemployment and then those displaced workers will need to be supported by what will quickly become a 'broke' state.

I think that it's about right as we are but if there is a social need, then we need to try to fill it but there needs to be a balance between those who have genuine housing needs and the feckless individuals who lean on the system looking for free accommodation subsidised by the ratepayers.

There will always be people who want to get rich quick or wish to add to their overseas funds. Land sale is one area and one cannot help but look at the owners of fields south of Newbury who must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of changing the use of their farmland to a site for housing development.

Posted by: Lolly Jun 10 2014, 08:05 AM

This is the crux of the matter. Developers/speculators who have bought up agricultural land, slightly inflated for 'hope' value, and are sufficiently wealthy to hold on to it long term until they can persuade government/local authorities/ planners that there are insufficient brownfield sites to meet housing need.

Posted by: Lolly Jun 10 2014, 08:25 AM

Don't disagree with you apart from the fact that I think the government definition is worse than meaningless - it is misleading. A lot of people seem to think that "affordable housing" in the context of S106 is modestly priced housing ( as per the OP) That is not the case - in fact it is another name for social housing ( mostly socially rented via Housing Associations) and the eligibility criteria seem pretty restrictive. I think ( but am willing to stand corrected) that one of the reasons for shortages in HA "affordable" properties is that tenancies ( certainly old tenancies) didn't take account of changing circumstances ie increases in income, dependant children leaving home etc. Thus you have an older generation of single/double occupancy of family houses and growing families with young children cramped into one or two bedroom flats.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 10 2014, 11:00 AM

Not just the south of Newbury - pretty much every field adjoining Newbury has been proposed for housing development under WBCs recent call for sites to fill a shortfall in their housing target.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2014, 11:43 AM

Yes, of course, but the differential between a 'shelf stacker' as you call them and the manager, even today isn't massive. The real issue is the loss of that higher level of job. We used to have significant numbers in professional roles which have disappeared as the UK lost its major businesses to foreign ownership.

Who are the feckless individuals looking for free accommodation? Those at rock bottom don't even account for 1% of the population! Yes, many people want decent accommodation, but like our national circumstances, we have reduce our standards. Only alternative is to secure more income, which dare I say, may even mean moving somewhere else.

Reading through this thread, there doesn't seem to be an unmet social need for housing, a lot of grumbling because perceived standards have dropped and a lot of grumbling that a perceived personal investment route had been closed. That apart, who is really clamouring for a habitable place to live?

You can't have those nice three bed semis without building on more virgin land and you can't have universal home ownership and a low wage economy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 12:13 PM

You have completely missed the point.

We have two issues amongst many.

Developers apparently cannot afford affordable homes.
There is a job famine amongst the young and there is an apparent lack of apprenticeships.

My thought was to 'kill two birds with one stone".

However, my original point was that local housing policy is being pushed to one side by a weak council(s).

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 12:17 PM

But there is also few places for people to vacate to; that is another problem.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 12:20 PM

Perhaps Sovereign could answer that.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2014, 04:12 PM

I've also asked Council people. Sovereign have no massive problem, of course, choice and expectation can be an issue, 'twas ever the case and that happens in the buy sector as well. Council 'welfare' demand, is as expected, never ending, again, when was it any different? As a society, we aren't willing to take hard decisions; in these cases, it's really down to no money. However, and I'm sure there will be squeals of protest at this, there is really no reason why young mums shouldn't be accommodated in decent hostel type homes, sufficiently comfortable for them to stay 'till they are back on their feet and can use the private rental sector.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 10 2014, 05:03 PM

You've answered your own question really.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 10 2014, 05:23 PM

Back on the Sterling Estate application, it is now the opportunity for Thames Valley Police to ask for a contribution.
£22,000 for two ANPR cameras as a result of placing the housing development in Newbury.
£1,600 for two bicycles to be used by police and support officers.

They base their request on 80 pages from the Secretary of State regarding an upheld planning appeal in Barrow on Soar. The final two pages are the TVP asking for their pound of flesh.
The cameras are they say...."an increasingly important tool in the prevention and detection of crime such as burglary, drug offences, and physical and sexual assault. As the site is close to the strategic road network it may be susceptible to transient crime. "
As far as bicycles are concerned, they also say that...."The two bikes will enable PCSO's and PC's to access the site and surrounding areas and provide a visible presence. They (bicycles) are seen as a sustainable means of transport."

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2014, 05:40 PM

Yes, you are right, I hadn't quite appreciated where you were coming from.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2014, 05:43 PM

Yes, this racket is a stealth tax on business. Statutory stupidity; then we wonder why the likes of Starbucks etc., take the tax people for a ride.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 07:14 PM

What is your point. Are you saying that there is no real demand for modestly priced homes?

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 10 2014, 07:17 PM

It is exactly that.

Just look at another planning application which was finally approved. This is the old Travis Perkins site in Mill Lane. 37 houses and 1500 sq feet commercial. The list of S106 is endless it seems.

Adult social care £22,487

Libraries £7080

Education £68,070

WBC Providing space and recreation £13,261

Recycling £1,648

Rights of way £5,000

TVP £5,850

Fire and rescue £619

Canal and River Trust £9,250

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 07:27 PM

9 line items is not endless.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 10 2014, 07:52 PM

It is if you are paying it. Endless was a figure of speech so perhaps it should have read

"The list of S106 is excessive in my opinion"

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 08:09 PM

Why is it excessive?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 10 2014, 08:35 PM

To address that point:

• The Town Council didn't make the WBC Housing Policy and is within its rights to decide whatever it wants.
• The Town Council shouldn't involve itself in planning, it should save us the cost of their pointless ill-informed deliberations and leave it to WBC.
• Not imposing any "affordable housing" quota better serves the public interest.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2014, 09:17 PM

No, of course there is a demand, but market forces should deliver housing at the optimum price. If we believe that certain sectors of society need specific help, then fine, a direct subsidy would focus aid to exactly where it's needed. Playing sophisticated games with planning regulations is going to help no one, least of all those who may need help.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 09:18 PM

It doesn't address the point, and between WBC and the NTC the affordable housing quota is being marginalised. Made worse by Julian Swift-Hook's crocodile tears. Can you give examples where having no 'affordable housing' policy has helped to improve the availability of modestly priced homes for people.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2014, 09:22 PM

Does that not simply raise the cost of a home even further? And by allowing 'exclusive enclaves' to thrive also does nothing to assist in moulding a cohesive society.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 10 2014, 09:58 PM

It addresses the OP. I don't accept that funny-money "affordable housing" does deliver housing that's affordable, I think it contributes to the housing bubble. Let the free-market loose on the problem.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 10 2014, 09:59 PM

That's a valid point. But you're confusing "affordable housing" with housing that's affordable. It should (IMHO) be an invilolate requirement of the Local Design Standard that housing should be sustainable in the broadest sense, and that means you can't build exclusive enclaves - by "affordable housing" is not that.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 11 2014, 12:15 AM

So, just to clarify things, if I may. What is your definition of affordable housing? And who should be, or alternatively, should not be either included or excluded from the market?

Posted by: nerc Jun 11 2014, 04:23 AM

That is obvious even to you surely.

The developer needs to obtain a certain profit margin to enable them to stay in business.

With the added "extras" S106 monies then this has to be built in to the overall costs of production.

This then increases the final price of each dwelling.

This S106 payment is a farce and from my past experience there are several incidents where that money never gets allocated to its appropriate source.

Maybe councils should invest S106 capital(if they insist on collecting it) into buying land and then developing affordable homes.

Posted by: newres Jun 11 2014, 05:25 AM

Suggesting that mortgages be capped at 2.5 times is not allowing people to manage their own affairs. What you mean is allow people to manage their affairs but within your own liberal agenda.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 11 2014, 05:37 AM

What I meant, and should have made clear, is that such subsidies should be made to the individual not the property. I quite agree, putting badges on property automatically creates division.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 11 2014, 05:43 AM

Actually the laissez faire liberal in me says let people borrow what they want and the devil take the hindmost, but I have a problem with that. Essentially, if individuals want to borrow so heavily when interest rates are low that they bankrupt themselves when rates inevitably rise then that's their own lookout - I don't expect the nanny-state to protect the feckless from themselves. However, so many people have over-extended themselves that the fall-out from a substantial interest rate rise would affect everyone, the feckless and prudent alike, so I reluctantly agree that there should be a cap on borrowing so that the economy and people generally are insulated from the feckless.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 11 2014, 05:52 AM

I can't give you a good definition of "affordable housing", my point is that the phrase is a euphemistic fudge that doesn't address the underlying unsustainability of the housing bubble.

I'm not convinced that the state should be provide housing. The state provided us with cars at one time, and I really don't want to go back to the style and build quality of British Leyland, and I see council housing in similar terms.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 11 2014, 07:14 AM

How does a home become modestly priced. I assume that in this case we are talking about a purchase rather than rental. The sale of a newbuild factors in the land cost, the labour and materials to deliver and a profit margin for the builder. Like any business he needs this margin to survive and to invest in his future.

In order to deliver 5 low cost in a development of 50, those 5 will need, to meet the case of modest price, to be sold either at cost without profit or possibly even below cost. This means that to achieve the overall profit he needs for the development the shortfall will get loaded onto the remaining 45. That will mean that the market becomes inflated if every developer was forced to stick by the rules.

Then what happens three years down the line when affordable sells his home, will he want the same price as Mr & Mrs Unaffordable achieved for their identical home a couple of months ago and if so the home is lost to the affordable market.

I know this is perhaps an over simplification, but this is how I see the way it works. If you can see it another way then I would be pleased to hear what you think.

Just a reply to the policy question, here is another question, what is the policy ?.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 07:32 AM

Can I assume that all you lot are doing is posting philosophical and political ideology and nothing is based on data and fact? Of those that endorse a free market ideology, I wonder how many have directly and indirectly benefited from the big council house sell-off.


Here's mine: the state have a duty to provide an inclusive environment, and in that way everyone benefits. I understand that the happiest societies are egalitarian. By allowing people be priced out creates more division and more problems. Before we had legislation, we had slums, and that was at a time where I feel people that were very wealthy were more philanthropic than today. The country were, it seems, able to build good quality homes at a time when the country had never been so skint, but it can't now.

In my view this isn't about one issue, the problems we might have are many fold. This is just as much about meaning full work, and a competitive low skill environment, as it is about the lack of modest housing.

Those that are prudent and secure in well earned homes have in part benefited by those that are less capable, or less socially or professionally mobile, and based on the idea there is no such thing as a free lunch, they owe it to themselves and others to contribute to a more even society.


But going back to the OP. There is a policy, it seems, but the councils seem toothless to implement it. We have a town that in part depends on cheap labour, by pushing those people out to the suburbs, or even further, will do nothing to help float the local economy, or even allow 'local' people from taking jobs in town. In deed, it creates a more likely environment where we depend on 'foreign' and 'facile' effort.

I believe that allowing developers to do as they wish will just see Newbury grow but only by people from out of town, it will do nothing about creating more affordable homes for the indigenous less fortunate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 09:53 AM

I doubt houses are build at a loss.

Low cost/value housing will simply be homes that are more modestly proportioned, with more budget priced fixtures and fittings and materials. They are more modular and are relatively quick to build. the developer can still have his margin.


A loading that is affordable I suspect; however I suspect you have this the wrong way round. I doubt that this is an issue of a lack of profit from building low cost housing, but more that the developer cannot charge what he wants for the luxury homes. Take the race course development; the last thing I heard was that finished low cost housing is being held back from occupancy because the developer wants to sell the higher value homes first. It could therefore be argued that enforced low cost housing could temper prices of luxury homes.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 11 2014, 09:57 AM

I don't think the state does have a duty to provide an inclusive environment. This certainly isn't a statutory provision and it does not feature in our constitution - written or otherwise. Yes, the problem is Multi faceted and appears complex - which naturally means consideration goes back to root causes. Nonetheless, our society, for better or worse, is a capitalist free market. You mention that locally, we rely on cheap labour, which can no longer afford decent accommodation, being blunt, there is a simple answer. The labour force will start to move away or demand more money, nothing wrong with that. Why should 'local' people think they have an absolute right to live and work in the vicinity in which they were born? Of course they don't. Yes, emotionally, I'd like to live and work in the Surrey village in which I was born - but I simply can't afford to added to which there is no work. That means you have yet another foreigner in your midst! I certainly didn't benefit from Council house sales and as mentioned in another response, neither did my parents. Indeed, two of my daughters have gad to move away, jobs with prospects aren't easy to come by in Newbury. Both now live in London, in very expensive shared accommodation. If you think about it, your last comment about developers not meeting the needs of the 'indigenous local population' holds them in very low regard. Why should they be so badly paid? Philanthropy isn't just for 'rich people' , how many of us would pay an extra £5 a week in Council Tax so that Teaching Assistants and care home workers can be paid a proper local wage?

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 11 2014, 10:09 AM

Bit like a Building Society then!

I think the "sell out" to the banks started changing the lending model from affordability to a more "profit led" decision.

I also believe that low inflation has made housing less affordable. When I first bought a house in the mid '80's the inflation rate (and interest rate) was higher. So although you were really stretched to pay the mortgage, within a couple of years it was a much smaller percentage of your take home pay.

Since 1998 inflation and wage increases are so much smaller that even though there has been a decrease in the Mortgage rate the percentage of take home is little different for much of the mortgages duration.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 10:09 AM

If luxury is provided by the impoverished, then there is a moral duty.


Exactly, hence my objections. Because something is, doesn't mean it should be.


I didn't say they should, but not everyone is as easily mobile as everyone else.


I doubt that is true; I said directly or indirectly, but in your case I have no proof. Many, if not most, home owners from the 80s onwards benefited from the council sell-off.


I think you have misunderstood my point; I don't understand yours.


I don't know, but I would support that idea, but of course for some, £5.00 would simply be one mug of that overpriced rubbish that many seem to like to buy these days, while others, it would be a few days heating.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 11 2014, 10:22 AM

Not sure that people were more philanthropic, before legislation many were paying less than a living wage (and not the loose description we would use for that today) and had no access to the many benefits and services provided by what could be classed forced philanthropy by the state.

Also many of the Philanthropists attached conditions to their provision to confirm with their own beliefs such as temperance.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 11 2014, 10:59 AM

You seem very embittered, which is distorting your logic. I may well have misunderstood but in view of the other things you say, there is not much point in continuing to discuss this; particularly as you have doubted the truth of my personal experience. What proof do you want; the probate papers?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 11:45 AM

Don't be silly: I don't doubt your integrity, more likely that you may not realise or appreciate how you benefited. As for embittered: this is just a discussion, is it not, anyway, any cynicism on my behalf is equally matched by recent generalisations of the feckless an the like, as always happens when these discussions occur.

Anyway, I maintain, my main gripe is that the councils have failed to maintain a policy which rightly or wrongly they felt is necessary. If they are not able to implement such a policy when the outlook is good, it won't happen when it is not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 11:48 AM

I don't have evidence to share about my point, but I have watched discussions on the subject where people think it is true. Going back, people made decisions, now a computer does it.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 11 2014, 12:23 PM

Last I heard (which may well be older 'news' than yours) the 'affordable' homes at the Racecourse were being handed over pretty promptly - unlike those at Parkway, which had not been handed over a year after they were finished. And we (the council tax payers) stumped up £1million to pay for the affordable housing at Parkway!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 11 2014, 01:48 PM

I seem to recall, the devolution of council housing to housing associations was generally after a ballot, so superficially at least the change was at the tenants request. There are all sorts of policy changes that have denuded local Councils of local authority. The Councillors fought to retain few, if any. The biggest devolution was caused by the 1945 Attlee Government. Before then, many local councils directly provided water, sewerage, gas, electricity, hospitals, as well as housing, schools, libraries, refuse collection etc.

Since then, no one, political,or otherwise has made any bid to take these services back. Ironic really, because in the case of gas and electricity, they generally produced revenue streams, independent of government control!

Sadly, although in other areas of past municipal endeavour the story might be different, in housing, certainly in the later decades of their control, Council management was generally poor and inadequate. Little wonder no one seems to want the rights restored.

My parents certainly didn't profit from the legislation enabling the sales. What other benefits were there? They took their tenancy in 1954, when post war reconstruction and the tail of the Bevan years meant there was virtually no other alternative, literally. A Council house was then the only way to get their own home, and the then rules meant if had to be in the town in which you were born.

For them, a house was 'allocated', no real choice. On what quickly became and still is a sink estate. A rent that was actually higher than my Grandmothers 'protected tenancy' private
rented house. In the compulsory catchment area for two poorly performing schools. Yes, a few shops, but no pub, because the chair of the housing committee thought it would be inappropriate. You want facts - Alan Taylor's Semi Detached London might explain.

I must admit, I was for many years, a card carrying member of the Co-operative Party and a keen enthusiast for a return to municipal trading. It is still quite possible. However, having been in Newbury some 20 years and seen how NTC operate in particular, I can now see it would be madness to even think it would work.

OK, subsidise if you must, but apply that to the individual, not the product.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 11 2014, 01:51 PM

Interesting Blackdog! It's ironic that there were no 'affordable' shops in the design, WBC missed a trick - Aldi could have saved having to rebuild a garage!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 03:25 PM

OTE, you recently explained how not everyone wanted or needed a large generous home, but if things are left to developers we will have none. The point is, councils are ultimately electable (in principle), but big business have a fairly free reign and are not. Things were like they were then but that doesn't mean it has to be like that now.

Posted by: nerc Jun 11 2014, 07:41 PM

I lived in a council house in Newbury when i first got married and had the opportunity to buy it a a discount the same as everyone else had.

We decide to purchase and my partenr and me worked not only on our regular jobs but also part time positions to ensure we could pay the mortgage and live a comfortable life at the same time.

We eventually decided after buying the property(6 years previous) to up grade and move.

We had a dilemma as we had invested a considerable amount of money into our (now) ex council house and liked the area we were in.

After many many discussions and consultations with our financial adviser we decide to purchase another home using the collateral in our house but still keep the original home and rent it out to cover the costs.

Since then we have done the same on 4 occasions and must admit using our right to buy has been the best investment ever.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 11 2014, 09:51 PM

I simply think Councils are totally the wrong vehicle to do this. Holding Assiciations, particularly if they were mutual, would be far better. They would also be able to do their work without political interference. I wholly agree things can change, but history demonstrates that they change again. In the case of housing, for the past century, public housing provision has been divisive, and has been a convenient political football. I can't see that ever changing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2014, 10:26 PM

I think this point would work if you replaced public with private too, but there's little more divisive that an environment where labour is being devalued at the same time the cost of living in a house, whether private or not, soars. Even in a housing association home, rent always rises above inflation.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2014, 06:39 AM

Quite agree, that combination is explosive - exactly today's issue.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 12 2014, 07:44 AM

This is why we have such a problem now, it's a no brainer to do it and I understand why people do, but it should never have been allowed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2014, 09:34 AM

And to compound the issue, we have very low interest rates and a pension industry with little credibility. I presume this is the reason house prices are being protected, and hence the two, or more, tier society that is developing.